2014 (9) TMI 809 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - duty paid by the job worker on the goods job worked on behalf of the appellant - Inclusion of cost material - whether the Appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the job workers on the intermediate products which had been paid on the value equal to the cost of the free supply inputs excluding excise duty (the credit of which had been taken by the Appellant) plus job charges plus value of any other inputs of their own used by the said job workers for manufacture of the intermediate products - Held that - manufacturer who has availed Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, can send those inputs to his job worker for further processing, testing, repair, reconditioning, etc. or for manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, provided the processed inputs or intermediate products are returned back within a period of 180 days. There is no condition that for availing the facility of this Rule, the job worker should avail full duty exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. There is no dispute that intermediate products made out of the inputs supplied by the Appellant were received back from the job workers within the stipulated period. There is no condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that job worker should necessarily avail of full duty Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. This exemption being a conditional exemption, is not required to be compulsorily availed by job workers. If the job worker decides to pay the duty on the intermediate products manufactured by him on job-work basis for the principal manufacturer, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, reported in 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , they would be required to pay duty on the cost of input plus job charges including the cost of their own inputs used in manufacture. This is what the job workers have done in the present case. First in the hand of input manufacturers from whom the Appellant had procured the inputs and second time in the hand of job workers who at the time of clearance of intermediate products made out of the inputs paid duty on value which included the cost of the inputs, the credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product cannot be denied when such intermediate were made out of those inputs, even if the Appellant had earlier taken the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs while receiving the same. In any case, the intermediate products made out of inputs are different from inputs and just because the Appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs, the Cenvat credit of duty, if any paid on the intermediate products by the job workers, cannot be denied to the principal manufactures. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of CENVAT Credit on duty paid by job worker for goods processed on behalf of appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved an appeal against Order-in-Original No.VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-20-13-14, dated 23.10.2013. The central issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit on duty paid by the job worker for goods processed on behalf of the appellant. The appellant had sent inputs to the job worker for further processing, and the job worker paid Central Excise duty on the semi-processed goods. The appellant then used these processed goods in their factory for manufacturing finished goods on which Excise duty was paid. The dispute arose because the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on the duty paid for the inputs sent to the job worker, leading to a potential double entitlement of credit. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was similar to a previous decision involving Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, where it was established that a manufacturer could send inputs to a job worker for processing without reversing the CENVAT Credit, as long as the processed goods were returned within a specified period. The Tribunal highlighted Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which allowed for the transfer of inputs to job workers for further processing without the need for duty exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the denial of CENVAT Credit on duty paid by job workers for processed goods was incorrect, as the appellant was entitled to such credit even if they had already availed credit on the inputs. The judgment clarified that intermediate products made from inputs were distinct from the inputs themselves, justifying the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT Credit on duty paid by the job workers. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed incorrect and set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.